Excerpt: - .....the first contention is that the notification is signed by mr. niranjandas, the commissioner of police, but the copy given to the appellant was signed by mr. debu and that the copy given to the appellant was for a different period. it is true that the copy of the relevant notification should have been given. but the irregularity is not very material, as the rest of the notification is almost identical in terms.(2) the next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the notification requires the same to be published in newspapers and that there is no evidence of such publication. the act does not require, that the notification should be published in the newspapers. what the act requires is that the notification should be publicly promulgated. there is evidence.....

Judgment:

(1) The appellant was convicted under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act for contravening a notification issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, prohibiting the carrying of Rampuri knife having 21/2 inches blade. The first contention is that the notification is signed by Mr. Niranjandas, the Commissioner of Police, but the copy given to the Appellant was signed by Mr. Debu and that the copy given to the Appellant was for a different period. It is true that the copy of the relevant notification should have been given. But the irregularity is not very material, as the rest of the notification is almost identical in terms.

(2) The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the notification requires the same to be published in newspapers and that there is no evidence of such publication. The Act does not require, that the notification should be published in the newspapers. What the Act requires is that the notification should be publicly promulgated. There is evidence of the notification being publicly promulgated in the deposition of Mr. Chhaya, P.W. 1. So, this point is rejected.

(3) The last point urged is that Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act is ultra vires, because it prohibits the carrying of arms including knives, sticks or lathis and other articles. The contention is that the knife is necessary for the Appellant for the purpose of his trade, because has to cut pieces of melons, which he has to sell to customer. But Section 37 of the Act is meant for temporary prohibition of carrying arms for preservation of public peace and safety. It is, therefore, not against the fundamental rights. This contention is, therefore, rejected.

(4) The conviction of the appellant is, therefore, confirmed. As regards the sentence, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside and it is replaced by the sentence of the fine of Rs. 400/- (four hundred), in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months.